Abstract
<p>In 2007, the Victorian government refused to produce a series of documents despite an order by the State’s Legislative Council to do so, claiming that the Council’s legal powers did not extend to making the order in question. The government cited some obscure alleged rules of law in support of their<br />position which no government elsewhere in Australia has ever thought to rely on. In citing these rules, the Victorian government appears to have misunderstood an early edition of Erskine May. This article demonstrates that none of the alleged rules exists, and the government’s refusal was wrong in law. Therefore is should not be regarded as setting a precedent for<br />future cases.</p>
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
